$12,000 For One Render

I posted a thread like this a year or two ago. Today I went to one of those international art fairs and saw a 3D render with a price tag of $12,000. It was a limited edition print, one of 20. 20 prints for $12,000 is almost a quarter of a million dollars for one render. The artist is once again Ray Caesar. Here's a link to the image Love Letters by Ray Caesar $12,000

Comments

Every Artist has the right to ask what they feel their art is worth. If others agree and pay that price then you are worth that price in the eyes of the person buying the art. The WORTH is in the buyers eye.

Every Artist has the right to ask what they feel their art is worth. If others agree and pay that price then you are worth that price in the eyes of the person buying the art. The WORTH is in the buyers eye.

And I have the right to laugh and say he's 'nucking futs'...especially when it's some gallery doing the 'asking'...to me, galleries are like 'big music/record labels'. They exist mostly to serve themselves, at the expense of the artist, as opposed to serving the artist. Galleries seem to exist to promote the idea 'if it costs a lot, it must be good'.

(*sigh*) Don't get me started on the art business. I don't blame everybody in the arena but I do have issues with the talentless fobs who get the clueless snobs to throw vast amounts of money their way. Too many examples of "The Emperor's New Clothes". :-( Must be nice to be in a business that has no objective measures of quality. :-Q

Not being measurable was my point. It's like asking which is better "red" or "green"? The answer is totally subjective.

Personally I'm looking for a sap that loves green and I'll sell him a bag of lawn cuttings sprayed onto framed piece of flypaper.

My criteria for liking art are: "does it show talent or persistence?" If so, then the creator deserves some kudos. My best example of non-art is Miro's giant, ragged, hand painted red circle on an otherwise blank canvas that I saw in a big Texas museum. Laughing all the way to the bank with that one he was.

I posted a thread like this a year or two ago. Today I went to one of those international art fairs and saw a 3D render with a price tag of $12,000. It was a limited edition print, one of 20. 20 prints for $12,000 is almost a quarter of a million dollars for one render. The artist is once again Ray Caesar. Here's a link to the image Love Letters by Ray Caesar $12,000

Not being measurable was my point. It's like asking which is better "red" or "green"? The answer is totally subjective.

Personally I'm looking for a sap that loves green and I'll sell him a bag of lawn cuttings sprayed onto framed piece of flypaper.

My criteria for liking art are: "does it show talent or persistence?" If so, then the creator deserves some kudos. My best example of non-art is Miro's giant, ragged, hand painted red circle on an otherwise blank canvas that I saw in a big Texas museum. Laughing all the way to the bank with that one he was.

Twenty-some years ago I was in the Smithsonian Fine Art museum (or Modern Art museum- I don't remember what it was called). I ran across a 'work' that consisted of two canvases, both about 5 feet square. One was semi-gloss black, the other semi-gloss white; about 9 inches in from the left on each was a lavender stripe not quite two inches wide, running top to bottom. I looked at it (them), and thought "This is art? Someone would pay for this? This looks stupid." Five times, over the course of the day; I couldn't stay away, it kept drawing me back.

The real trick is getting into a gallery, or having someone who promotes you... also the artist is not going to be making $12,000 each piece... he'll probably have to split that 60/40 with the gallery.

It is an Okay looking piece... not my thing by a long shot... But $12,000 good?
Eh, if thats what you want to pay... I'd be more impressed if the Artist agreed to (by legal contract) to delete the original scene/file after the initial run. That makes it more "valuable" and unique in my opinion.
Other than that I don't really see any special value to something he could just crank out more of. Seems kind of lame to me.
I can only imagine that such a thing will only sell to someone who does not know ANYTHING about CGI and thinks its all just magic from the world of tomorrow.
But, yeah... good luck to him if he can get it... There is far more effort, and talent involved in what he made than what I've seen (up close and personal) go into the average pop art piece.
I once had the "privilege" of seeing Julian Schnabel create one of his great works... a piece painted on an old army tarp with the words Saint Ignatius of Loyola and some deer antlers painted in house paint on it... he spent a couple of hours to write the words and draw the antlers... there may have some other stuff on it... I forget, it was like 1987 or something like that... but for fuddling around for a few hours, he got $10,000 or $12,000 dollars. AND people called him (and some still do) a GENIUS for it.

Perhaps he was... he was able to market that thing.

Most people who collect art, do it for a very narrow range of reasons... To make money off of it, to appear smart and cultured and on some very rare occasions, because the art actually appeals to them.... So if this fellow finds someone to pay for his render... good for him.

Not being measurable was my point. It's like asking which is better "red" or "green"? The answer is totally subjective.

Personally I'm looking for a sap that loves green and I'll sell him a bag of lawn cuttings sprayed onto framed piece of flypaper.

My criteria for liking art are: "does it show talent or persistence?" If so, then the creator deserves some kudos. My best example of non-art is Miro's giant, ragged, hand painted red circle on an otherwise blank canvas that I saw in a big Texas museum. Laughing all the way to the bank with that one he was.

Twenty-some years ago I was in the Smithsonian Fine Art museum (or Modern Art museum- I don't remember what it was called). I ran across a 'work' that consisted of two canvases, both about 5 feet square. One was semi-gloss black, the other semi-gloss white; about 9 inches in from the left on each was a lavender stripe not quite two inches wide, running top to bottom. I looked at it (them), and thought "This is art? Someone would pay for this? This looks stupid." Five times, over the course of the day; I couldn't stay away, it kept drawing me back.
I'm reluctant to say "this isn't art", especially when (however inexplicably) a piece does what art's supposed to do. And in this day'n'age it's not really surprising that art made with high-tech supplies is starting to draw critical acclaim and big money.

I'd say the piece in question (which looks like a lot more work went into it than just load-pose-render), as a high-quality print with a limited run, could easily be worth a few hundred on the open market. $12,000?!? Not from me! But it's not to my taste.

Not being measurable was my point. It's like asking which is better "red" or "green"? The answer is totally subjective.

Personally I'm looking for a sap that loves green and I'll sell him a bag of lawn cuttings sprayed onto framed piece of flypaper.

My criteria for liking art are: "does it show talent or persistence?" If so, then the creator deserves some kudos. My best example of non-art is Miro's giant, ragged, hand painted red circle on an otherwise blank canvas that I saw in a big Texas museum. Laughing all the way to the bank with that one he was.

Twenty-some years ago I was in the Smithsonian Fine Art museum (or Modern Art museum- I don't remember what it was called). I ran across a 'work' that consisted of two canvases, both about 5 feet square. One was semi-gloss black, the other semi-gloss white; about 9 inches in from the left on each was a lavender stripe not quite two inches wide, running top to bottom. I looked at it (them), and thought "This is art? Someone would pay for this? This looks stupid." Five times, over the course of the day; I couldn't stay away, it kept drawing me back.
I'm reluctant to say "this isn't art", especially when (however inexplicably) a piece does what art's supposed to do. And in this day'n'age it's not really surprising that art made with high-tech supplies is starting to draw critical acclaim and big money.

I'd say the piece in question (which looks like a lot more work went into it than just load-pose-render), as a high-quality print with a limited run, could easily be worth a few hundred on the open market. $12,000?!? Not from me! But it's not to my taste.
I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

If you don't go out and dig out your own block of marble, dig, bake grind your own pigments...stretch...heck, weave your own canvas...go pluck the tail hairs off a mink or squirrel...grow your own chickens so you have your own eggs...it's not art.

If you don't go out and dig out your own block of marble, dig, bake grind your own pigments...stretch...heck, weave your own canvas...go pluck the tail hairs off a mink or squirrel...grow your own chickens so you have your own eggs...it's not art.

"I no longer wonder at your knowing only six accomplished [artists]; I wonder at your knowing any!" :P

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

Very true Zaarin, but it WAS printed on paper, we just don't know what kind of paper, especially if it's signed, numbered and framed with a backing behind it. Who's going to undo the backing paper, remove the frame, and test the paper? Most wouldn't bother unless it was an oil or acrylic on canvas, and then they might want it tested if it's supposed to be from a classic artist like Picasso or Monet, et al.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer. Unbelievable! You can't get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK. With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

Very true Zaarin, but it WAS printed on paper, we just don't know what kind of paper, especially if it's signed, numbered and framed with a backing behind it. Who's going to undo the backing paper, remove the frame, and test the paper? Most wouldn't bother unless it was an oil or acrylic on canvas, and then they might want it tested if it's supposed to be from a classic artist like Picasso or Monet, et al.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer. Unbelievable! You can't get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK. With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.
My comment was mostly directed at KickAir's statement that it's not surprising high-tech art is in demand; in my experience, high tech art has to sell really hard just to be accepted as art.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

Very true Zaarin, but it WAS printed on paper, we just don't know what kind of paper, especially if it's signed, numbered and framed with a backing behind it. Who's going to undo the backing paper, remove the frame, and test the paper? Most wouldn't bother unless it was an oil or acrylic on canvas, and then they might want it tested if it's supposed to be from a classic artist like Picasso or Monet, et al.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer. Unbelievable! You can't get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK. With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.

My comment was mostly directed at KickAir's statement that it's not surprising high-tech art is in demand; in my experience, high tech art has to sell really hard just to be accepted as art.
Sorry, what I said was that I'm not surprised that it's starting to get demand -- it had to happen eventually. Anybody who's grabbed Poser or DAZ Studio and fired it up believing in the Make Art button's had their dreams of quick'n'easy art shot down in short order -- 3D art's not easier nor much faster than traditional media, it just has different difficulties, challenges that some people find themselves more capable of overcoming that those involved in mastering sculpture or painting.

I posted a thread like this a year or two ago. Today I went to one of those international art fairs and saw a 3D render with a price tag of $12,000. It was a limited edition print, one of 20. 20 prints for $12,000 is almost a quarter of a million dollars for one render. The artist is once again Ray Caesar. Here's a link to the image Love Letters by Ray Caesar $12,000

The price may probably have some believe that it's worth it. One of my friends had a shop were he sold crystals. Some of the cheap ones didn't sell very well, so for fun he tried to double the price. Then he suddenly started selling more of these. Go figure.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

Very true Zaarin, but it WAS printed on paper, we just don't know what kind of paper, especially if it's signed, numbered and framed with a backing behind it. Who's going to undo the backing paper, remove the frame, and test the paper? Most wouldn't bother unless it was an oil or acrylic on canvas, and then they might want it tested if it's supposed to be from a classic artist like Picasso or Monet, et al.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer. Unbelievable! You can't get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK. With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.

My comment was mostly directed at KickAir's statement that it's not surprising high-tech art is in demand; in my experience, high tech art has to sell really hard just to be accepted as art.
Sorry, what I said was that I'm not surprised that it's starting to get demand -- it had to happen eventually. Anybody who's grabbed Poser or DAZ Studio and fired it up believing in the Make Art button's had their dreams of quick'n'easy art shot down in short order -- 3D art's not easier nor much faster than traditional media, it just has different difficulties, challenges that some people find themselves more capable of overcoming that those involved in mastering sculpture or painting.
True Beth. I agree with that. I know it's taken me almost 4 years dabbling in DS to think I'm even making headway. I'll never consider anything I create art, but then most of us are our own worst critics. That's not to say that I haven't, over the years I've been involved in Bryce, Poser and now DS, seen renders I would consider a piece of art if printed on a high quality printer and framed, because I have and some are from members of this very forum. I just don't think, as nice as that render is, that it's the kind of render to sell for that kind of money unless it had been hand painted. It's nice, just not phenomenal, and not worthy of such a high price tag.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of snobbery out there that if it wasn't done on paper or canvas or fresco or marble or some other traditional medium, it's not art. :(

Very true Zaarin, but it WAS printed on paper, we just don't know what kind of paper, especially if it's signed, numbered and framed with a backing behind it. Who's going to undo the backing paper, remove the frame, and test the paper? Most wouldn't bother unless it was an oil or acrylic on canvas, and then they might want it tested if it's supposed to be from a classic artist like Picasso or Monet, et al.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head that it was printed with an inkjet printer. Unbelievable! You can't get true RGB colors with an inkjet, only CYMK. With a good commercial laser printer, however, you could.

My comment was mostly directed at KickAir's statement that it's not surprising high-tech art is in demand; in my experience, high tech art has to sell really hard just to be accepted as art.
Sorry, what I said was that I'm not surprised that it's starting to get demand -- it had to happen eventually. Anybody who's grabbed Poser or DAZ Studio and fired it up believing in the Make Art button's had their dreams of quick'n'easy art shot down in short order -- 3D art's not easier nor much faster than traditional media, it just has different difficulties, challenges that some people find themselves more capable of overcoming that those involved in mastering sculpture or painting.
For my part, I agree with you--but the critics still believe in the "Make Art" button, unfortunately, as do the people using the "real" 3D programs that cost what this artist is making for his render. :P

. . . unfortunately, as do the people using the "real" 3D programs that cost what this artist is making for his render. :P

Or more likely double that price or more. I've always wanted Maya as it was used to create the later Myst games, which is how I got interested in 3D in the first place, but it's currently selling for $3,675. ~sheesh~